Tonight we get a first hand look at both the new expansions that are about to hit on Saturday. These have been contentious to say the least, but 40k is about to enter a new age. War in the 41st millennium just became much more dangerous.

Please remember that these are rumors and will remain so until we get an official look at the books

via Father Gabe from the Faeit 212 inbox.I wanted to pass on information concerning Escalation and Stronghold Assault. I had the opportunity to have these two books in my hands today. I wanted to pass on the following information:- For Standard (what some refer to as "regular") Warhammer 40,000- Not Expansion (like Planetstrike, Cities of Death, etc)- Lord of War choice is optional (like Fortifications, Allies)- Rules governing Lord of War: If you use a Lord of War your opponent receives a +1 bonus to Seize the Initiative and for every 3 Hull Points or Wounds you cause on a Lord of War choice you gain +1 (like Slay the Warlord, First Blood, etc).- I won't go into details concerning the data sheets but don't expect Reavers, Mantas or Hierophants. - Rules governing Str D weapons, AV 15 and all other Apocalypse based rules remain the same, but now crossover to Standard ("regular") Warhammer 40,000.So it is Standard. Yep Tournaments can ban them, but these are for "regular" games. These rules are now apart of the landscape. Whether they are chosen for tournaments or not, that's not my call. I would only hope that they are tried out to see the difference before being condemned but I cannot help uninformed bias. Locally we are going to play the heck out of it to see if they should or should not be included in Tournaments (or as it is being suggested every other tournament allow FW, Escalation, Stronghold Assault).

Why are so many people resistant to change? Stuff like this is great for the game, and it's not really new. Chapter approved used to have all kinds of wild crazy different armies on the tables and I think it's fun that they are going back to that as opposed to a stale static set of vanilla armies with mono builds. I think this will make tournaments more fun and more challenging. I'm sure some will ban them, but some groups still ban fliers. An extra VP for every 3 HP makes super heavies a risky choice. A baneblade is easy to hurt from behind and with a lot of games coming down to that first blood VP risking an extra 3 balances out the power. Maybe we should make a seperate set of 5th edition tournaments so that people who freak out over every single change to the game can still have their fun and everyone else can enjoy the adaptive and crazy fun scene.

They're probably getting those "delusions" from GW's website where it said that Escalation allows players to include super heavies in ANY game warhammer 40k. Not vaguely either, they specifically said any game. Obviously you can refuse to play against super heavies, just like you can refuse to play against any army. Nonetheless, Escalation is an addition to the rules, exactly like codexes. You have no greater right to refuse to play against it than you do to refuse to play against the Tau dex.

There is no standard 40K..only in your mind. You also have no idea what or which Tournament is going to allow or disallow any of this. Tournaments are attended by people who want entertainment, the vast majority could care less about what the minority of so-called 'serious tourney players' want. They want to take an army, have fun for the weekend and go home with some cool memories. You think they want to go and play the same 6 armies in a row?..because some TOs decided what the rules should be?Only a moron as a TO would blow off these rules, you need guys to show up up and pay the bills. I am not talking from ignorance here, and if you think big tournaments are going to blow off GW rules you are mistaken.

I already know of two regional level tournaments that will use both, and 9 FLGS locations that permit all digital content in game.

It is made for standard games, whether you accept that or not is on you. Don't be a whiner resistant to change and push that on everyone else. GW has effectively declared these every bit as standard as the rulebook.

Well in the interest of keeping the threads open and non-trolly (not sure if I just made that up) you don't have to get on here and start being rude. These are not expansions sir. These are for standard games of Warhammer 40k. How do I know (and you soon will) is that it says so in the preface of both books. Additionally, what I forgot to include was that all fortifications have been updated in some manner (including in the BRB). However, I see that some people do not want to believe so come Saturday seeing is believing.

Whether not it is allowed in tournaments is not up to anyone's decision except TO's. People said Forge World wouldn't be allowed but there are numerous big tournies across the US that do include it (Bay Area Open, Las Vegas GT, Wargames Con, Adepticon and local store tournaments).

It does matter what GW declares official. It is their game, their rules, not yours. They give you liberty to change things up as you see fit so long as your opponent agrees. However, they are the ones who test this months in advance and balance it. Sure there might be minor bugs here and there, but an /entire/ release is meant to be played and interact with the entirety of the game. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unofficial. Tournaments who ban these are handicapping their players and buffing players who minmax things like screamerstars.

Example: Screamerstar. Very good and not every codex can handle it alone. Bring in a superheavy with a D weapon, you risk more VPs for your opponent but can deal with re-rollable 2++s. That is called balance. Superheavies are not nearly as scary as people like to think. GW has yet to make a win button, and they fixed things like exploits immediately, I doubt this release will be one.

Dual FOC: Every. Single. 6th. Edition. Codex. Was. Designed. For. This. Banning it limits what you can do at 2k+.

Fortifications: Not all codices are made to handle certain things as effective as other. Otherwise they would all be the same. Fortifications give players who aren't world class pros a chance to balance their armies. Same goes for allies.

Now that being said, nothing is perfect, but I'm going to give the people who have been designing this game longer than some players have been alive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the initial introduction of new rules.

Fun? That is subjective. Whenever anyone refers to whether or not something is fun that only applies to that one person. I personally think these new additions will be awesome to play with and against.

I guarantee that everyone on the internet who cry the world is ending or will refuse games for x, y and z snotty reasons are the vocal minority.

Note: Those of you who play respectfully and are polite about declining games for valid reasons and such are totally fine. No foul there. But when it comes to a tournament, unless almost every single player is in agreement there should be no bans unless it is for the following:

-Its so new the bugs haven't been ironed out I.E. released days before the tourny-There is a game exploit/loophole I.E. infinite Jokero fiasco-Doesn't fit Pre-Established Tournament Theme

See. I knew I would encounter one of these types that just like to flame posts. All angriness aside, Shadowmancer if you perceive these are expansions then by all means plow on ahead with your perception. Come Saturday the Facts/Proof will be revealed which will either give you vindication or condemnation. Either way I hope you give these new additions to standard Warhammer 40k a try, they will change how the game is played.

the thing is Im not wrong in my perception. For all intents and purposes a codex is an expansion on the rules, it just happens to be a mandatory one to play the game.

As for double force org, I don't play 2k plus. But I think that they set the points level for the double force org about 500 points too low. That is what I believe but my opinion on it is irrelevant because I don't play at 2k+. My usual games I build and play at 1850 because that is a level where I can get the toys I like but I have hard choices to make.

I'm not a fan of Superheavies in sub-2k because it quickly becomes apoc-lyte. If I wanted to play Apoc I would play apoc. My opinion on it is that Forge Worlds method of adding the big things to the Horus Heresy games is the way that it should be, it makes sense and keeps the lower than 2k lists less I can kill that thing that will kill me 1st and you can't deal with AV15 or do X many hull points. It swings game balance too far in the other direction. Wait for the first person to bring a Superheavy at 1000 points and then see why it is generally a bad idea to allow them at that sort of level.

Also there is no such thing as standard 40k, along the same lines as there is no such thing as Common Sense. It is all individual to each player/group.

As for formations they are bad at lets say normal level (1500-2000, which is what I understand is the common range most games fall in these days) The Force Org chart is all about choice, same thing with the Allies Force Org. Opportunity cost is a thing in 40k. I.E. I take a unit of War Walkers, a Falcon and a Fire Prism this denies me the ability to take say a Vauls weapon platform unit. (Assuming not using Double Force Org due to points not allowing it)

What the dictionary definition of an expansion is and what expansion means to 40k are two separate things. Therefore these not being defined as 40k expansions is important. Also a superheavy at 1k is likely to be more of a handicap, especially if they offer aditional VPs.

Thanks gents. I'm not discouraged, I just want to reach other people to at least try it, if they don't dig it then fine. I see in the future the naysay minority being on the back end of finding games, while the majority use more and more of new supplements being made available. Players like change, its been happening for 20+ years with GW (by my experience) that the game keeps changing, new rules, new models. Now if someone doesn't like that and wants to play straight codex and BRB then so be it. I would theorize you will find less and less games with people outside your inner circle, which is fine. However, that type of gaming can lead to stagnation, so be careful.

Finally, a theoretical chance to use my warhound on a regular basis. While I am happy that destroyer keeps is strength, that translates into more hesitance from opponents who don't have super heavies themselves, in my opinion.

Sadly warhound isn't on the list, it kinda makes sense though since titan legions aren't part of any of the core 40k forces the way the other titans are (eg space marine pilots run the Thunderhawk, if crew man the baneblade)

From what we've been told, CSMs have only the Khorne Lord of Skulls as our option, which is a bit upsetting, since I have no interest in that monstrosity, and I already own a Baneblade. However, if Supers are like the new Formations and I can take my Baneblade crewed by Guardsmen, without having to take IG allies, I will be thrilled. If it comes down to having to take IG allies to get the Baneblade in my army, then I'll go down that route eventually. But as Gabe has said, we'll know come Saturday. (Actually, I'll know come Friday night if I change my mind and decide to pre-order the digital version... :-D )

Sure warhound can be killed. But 4 destroyer blasts kill youre anti tank. All units you take beside youre Titan just have to stall Time. With skyshiel techmarine repairs and some psykig buffs i dont see why i would not run my warhound?!

JD from what I was hearing from others who have seen the book, only the primary detachment can take a lord of war, making the ones you will see in games somewhat more limited, as only Guard, Orks, Necrons, and CSM have plastic models, and only the Guard and Cron ones are easy to take below 500-600 points for the LoW

I'm kinda sad there's no iBook version, I want the stronghold one but the ebook files just look janky on a tablet, and no easy tap-for-rule interaction. Hopefully GW digital editions will get around to them soon.

Marcus don't be too downhearted. 'Lords of War' is being stamped on selected entries in the Imperial Armour books now (like the 40k stamp). So in IA2 2nd edition space marines can take Fellblade, spartan etc... in there Lord of War slot for escalation.I think it would make sense that in future IA updates warhounds would get the same treatment.

Ditto. Makes me more inclined to get the digital versions... I was going to pass on it initially, but 2 of my Nids friends have Harridans, and I know they'd love to use them in our games, so I might just go ahead and get it...

Actually FW has a lot towards xenos as they have some very good units(except DE really). And the problem about "learning" these units is easily remidied by making sure you TALK with your opponent about what they have and what it does BEFORE the game. Don't just exclude it because its FW.

Your mostly right Jacob. However, FW has been putting out more xenos as of late. Currently we have Orks, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines with vehicles and lists (though I have yet to see one of the Army list used).

The few tournaments that we run with FW (every other one as of the past two years) very few people bring them. Those that do, I can tell you with 100% assurance that not one of those lists win or make it to the top 3. The meta lists run roughshod over everyone. I must say it is amusing watching players worry about FW units included in the tournament and then end up not even being concerned with it. Ive run tournaments in Arizona, North Carolina, Missouri and Texas (thanks to the Marine Corps for so much travel). Nothing has been proven as broken...after the fact.

I have to 100% agree. There is very strong non-xeno bias.Yes, of course the tau have the tigershark, and the tyranids have the hierodule and the necrons have a big ctan...and non of those is even remotely in the same league as a 750pt wolfhound (point for point, the necron pylon is, but gw and fw seem to be confused on the rules for it).

As ALWAYS I strongly encourage players to play more than one army (make sure at least one of them is not a powerarmor army....).

Tau and Eldar are the current top two army lists. Xenos don't NEED boosting - yes, sure you can go on about how the DE don't get anything or whatnot, but when you say Xenos you're lumping them all together. We don't need EVERY Xenos army to be better than the Imperium as a whole, after all. Which Taudar already do.

There's plenty of excellent Xenos stuff. Remember, much of the Imperial stuff is either A: awful, or B: just a different model for something that already exists. Eldar get several great flyers, an AA tank, an excellent medium attack skimmer, a Vindicator equivalent, a new warrior aspect, a Corsair list, and more.

Any word on what armies can have which Lords of War yet? Although I play Space Marines, I bought a Shadowsword and a Baneblade just before Apocalypse 2.0 was released. A Thunderhawk is well outside of my price range, so I'm hoping that I'll be able to use one of the Super-Heavies I already own without having to build a Guard force.

@Father Gabe: are these Lords of War new slots in a detachment's FOC, such that in James' example he would have to take IG allies (as would I for CSMs), or are they a type of detachment on their own, like the new Formations that we've just started seeing this week (Tau Firebase Support Cadre)?

Looking at it, then the Force Organization in the BRB, it looks like the Fortification symbol, except different design. Has optional under it like the Fortification symbol. I will double check today but it appears if you want Baneblade you need IG. That's an interesting question, I will try to find out today and post (or have Natfka update this post) around 3pm central.

@ prometheus- not quite seeing eye to eye w you on that... I agree that players should agree "want to play escalation?" But if its every bit as "standard 40k" as let's say the supplements have been than I politely disagree... I wouldn't be shocked to walk into a gaming shop/club and see people w superheavies for their default 2000-2500 lists.

If you don't go to tournaments then it is not an issue. The only issue right now is whether the big Tournaments allow everything or not. Otherwise you can always play who and what you want to play against at anytime..although in my opinion if you pick and choose then you really are not a player.

Which is kind of the way I feel too. That unfortunately means I am increasingly likely to leave the 40k scene. I have enjoyed 40k for a long time, but never had any interest in Apocalypse. Now it appears I only can choose between Apocalypse and Apocalypse Lite.

Leave if you're leaving. Honestly, the lot of you who are complaining about this won't be missed. Superheavies with D-weapons? So what? Expect to face it and prepare part of your list to handle it. Make sure you deploy so you don't lose all of your anti-superheavy from the get-go. Confuse, deep strike, outflank, stacked heavy weapons.

You have options, people. Not liking something is fine - complaining at everyone else or ditching the game over it is what children do. Grow up, adapt.

Hell, I don't actually like this myself. I have a feeling my wife's Eldar are going to tear my lists an even bigger new one, but I'm not going to baww about it - I'm going to dust off my Baneblade and throw it in the mix, or I'm going to have Psyker/Rogue Battle Squads with a ton of lascannons supporting. Maybe outflank some Demolishers, infiltrate my Vindicare. Possibilities are available.

Incomprehensible string of numbers and letters username,I get that people who are being critical have been shrill at times, but telling players they wont be missed is harsh, and I don't think accurate. If players who are alienated stop playing altogether it just means less opponents and less people buying stuff, which hurts everyone. The goal should be a game that is as large and inclusive as possible, which is why I've never understood the hate toward tournament players from some segments. Just because not everyone agrees about how to play, doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace each other as a community and be positive!

I'm curious. Why is reluctantly stepping away from a hobby I have participated in for more than 25 years childish?I have to agree with Father Gabe that Escalation/Stronghold Assault/formation/etc are going to become the norm. If that style of gaming (basically Apocalypse Lite) is not something I think I will enjoy, then stepping away from the hobby is sensible, not childish.Once I see how the game changes, I will make my decision. Right now, I'm not very optimistic.

stepping away from the hobby if it's not for you anymore is not childish, but the narrowmindedness and petulance that some people have been posting here is. Clearly not everyone wants superheavies in their pick up games, cool. Im sure most will be able to find opponents who are on the same page as them. But I for one am tired of all the "I'm gonna leave" statements we've been seeing recently. And even more tired of all the "I don't even play anymore but this is stupid" babble we've been seeing. I hate to see Faeit 212 become another Dakka or Bols with all the GW/FW hate that entails. And @ Ian, I think a lot of the negativity towards tournament players comes from the way the vocal minority of them try to control the whole of the game to their advantage.

Statements from current players saying why they feel the coming changes are bad for the game *in their opinion* and may change their attitude to the game should be given the same respect and validity as player statements as to why they are pumped up by the changes.

Unless this site is intended to be only a 'RaRa GW is wonderful!' site, which I don't think is the case.

Unfortunately there is a slice of the posting population that thinks that disparagement is a better response. It is the internet though, so it is to be expected.

I am hoping this is the 40K that I want to play. I have been a serious Tournament player and a 'fluff' nut. I am kind of a combination of both I guess. I have certain internal rules that I follow, but I want to be able to use all of the tools in the toolbox of all the books I have read! I want to be able to build a list that makes sense game wise AND has a story. Unless I am pigeon-holed into certain armies that i don't necessarily want to play, this has not been the case lately. I am hoping that there are so many options and so many rules that you are forced to actually play the game tactically..and not rely on some Mathhammer uber-build you figured out at home.I personally will not play people or attend tournaments where they decide what build you can or cannot play. Bring it on in all it's Glory!!!

If someone wants to spend the points on a SuperHeavy because they have one, I say Bring It! That's a lot of points to sink into something that's (probably) not a scoring unit, and can give up VPs for every 3 HPs or Wounds I can inflict on it. And I've already been tweaking my lists to deal with more AV14, since IG are breathing real hard (I.e., about to come), so, yeah, bring it and we'll see what happens.

Gents I should point out, this is what I read. If, IF, I can I will read a 3rd time the beginning of the book and report back. As Natfka said, its rumor until proven otherwise. If you don't like the new additions to the game, then don't use them...simple. However, don't put someone on blast because they want to use it. In the coming week we are going to see what affect this has on the game, I would say by January results from the willing players will roll in and we will have a clear picture on its feasibility. But it takes players who take change in stride and essentially put to rest our concerns.

Refusing to use it would be the same as refusing to use 6th edition, or a 6th edition codex, and carry on using 5th or an older version of the book because you don't like the latest one.

The bottom line is that these books are core additions to the BRB.

The only caveat is that nothing stops you from saying "I don't want to play against you, because you have a superheavy" the same way you can say "I don't want to play against you, you have 3 heldrakes." Both are clearly legal by the rules.

It's not like Cities of Death or Planet Strike where strategems factor into play, etc causing armies/army lists to not be compatible.

Got to say change is good, like for example THIS NEW SITE. Looks awesome Natfka.Also I think that the addition of Escalation and Stronghold are awesome and should have just been included in the BRB when it was released. I can understand why GW did not include it to start off, They just did not want the backlash from gamers saying it was too much of a departure from their much loved 5th ED rules. (am I remembering that right 5th ED was good right?) We all wanted something better from GW and all wanted the broken units to be fixed. I think that GW has gone along way toward this with the inclusion of DFOC, allies, Inq, and just adding real flavor to every army. Well done GW. To all the haters, Suck it up Princess

I am not seeing hostility here, I am seeing a spirited and passionate debate about what direction this hobby is going. People get emotional about things they really love, it is life and a lot of people love this hobby. It might sound weird but it's true and not a bad thing in my opinion.

I agree.Often times its youre take on what someone comments not the words that are hostil.

This game change is the new direction the game is going. Its not going to go away. Bigger point limits are going to balance things out, but some people wont be able to afford to play in future. So ofc there is heated comments.

FW rules for lords of war are better IMHO. They allow you to take a LoW choices which costst up to 25% points of your army. I think that's more balanced. But then again it'd be difficult to take things like lord og skulls which costs whopping 888 points...

Hopefully they will work well in combo, I don't know if I want to add a super heavy to my armies, however I could always add some fortifications to give my forces a counter to super heavy attack and also act as a nice distraction while I glance those Baneblades to death from the rear with fliers and deep striking heavy assault units

I actually had the two new books in my hands yesterday (apparently they are being delivered to the stores as we speak). For natural reasons I focused more on the Escalation, since I already own Apocalypse. What Natfka posted is completely true. I may add that when your opponent's army includes a Lord of War, your Warlord can elect to roll on the Lords of War Warlord table, which actually gives him and his unit some very nice anti-super-heavy abilities, like preferred enemy (Lords of War), or no deep strike scatter when you deep strike within 6" of the Lord of War. D-weapons work exactly as they do in Apoc, and basically the two books are completely interchangable when it comes to datasheets for units. Like Lord Smoove has said - the army's primary detachment dictates what Lord of War you can include. So no Baneblade for Chaos with Guard allies. If Guard is primary, you can include Baneblade, etc. The super-heavies that I am sure are in the book: Baneblade, Shadowsword, Hellhammer, Stormlord, Khorne Lord of Skulls, Thunderhawk Gunship, Ork Stompa, Eldar Revenant Titan, Harridan, Tesseract Vault, Transcendent C'tan, Tau Tigershark. Obviously, Revenant is for both Eldar and Deldar, and Lord of Skulls for CSM and Daemons.

Stronghold Assault is a collection of rules for fortifications from everywhere, including rulebook and Apoc. There are some new things, like force field generator (unless I'm missing something). There are rules for wall of martyrs and Aquila Strongpoint as well, including the dreaded Macro-cannon. They fit normally under the standard Fortification box in the FOC, and are somehow a direct response to Escalation. The different matter is how can anything be a direct response to a Revenant Titan with 4 D-weapon large blasts a turn, but I will not delve into the matter. There are some new missions, tailored for creating memorable missions including massive sets of fortifications in standard games of 40k. Many fortifications can be put together, to form specific lines of defense, with added bonuses (not unlike fortification-formations).

Sucks that Daemons have to use the Lord of Skulls. I mean, I play world eaters and Khorne daemons, but it would have been nice to let me use An'Ggrath, being an actual daemon and all. Plus, same points cost.

Hell gents (and ladies) I could have read all this wrong. I do read English (my first language) and I did read the preface 2 - 3x for each book (which were identical). So today I am going to read it again (if I can) and triple check what I read. I will try and be meticulous and maybe record what im saying via my phone (cause I cant take a picture sorry).

I can transcribe and send it to Natfka so we can all see the proof. Though it is still a rumor until proven otherwise (in a day if you do digitial, two days for hard copies).

Still at the end of the day, if you are a naysayer then I hope you at least try it, and don't have problems in the future finding games outside you inner circle group. Just be careful you don't spread your perceptions to far, allow others the chance to try out products your not willing to. Especially the younger generations that look to those of us deeply invested in the game.

jss888 I did not see the Big Demon Lords. Though that is something else I need to look for concerning additional units allowed and see what they say about other FW books outside of the FW models they already allow.

To all the naysayers I say - pbbbbt! 40K as it stands now is more like 40K v.6.2 - it's a constantly evolving medium with all sorts of new rules and changes coming out. We already have mini-dexes, and dataslates, and formations. You can pick and choose what rules you want to use at the end of the day, but to get hot under the collar and suggest rules are somehow not rules or not official, or anything to try to avoid having to use them is a little silly.

All that being said, what I'm interested in is whether this opens up the possibility for all sorts of superheavies being used in our everyday games of 40K. Father Gabe - was there anything you saw which suggested you could use other superheavies if you so wished? Like taking a Scorpion or a Lynx in an Eldar army? Or a Fellblade in a marine army? Or did it expressly say that for now only the superheavies/gargantuan creatures in Escalation can be used as Lords of War?

I have the book in front of me now, scanning for my iPad, and I can't find anything saying we can add any additional Lords of War units/etc. to the game. It is very clearly written in the fluff, that these are the times we are living in, and armies have to deal with the big guns (paraphrasing a bit as I don't want anyone to shut down the site...)

IA2 2nd edition has a lord of war stamp on selected units so yes you can use other units not included in the escalation book itself. Although it should be noted that not all of the super heavies have the stamp. But the Fellblade does ;)

People say there is no support for Xenos. Book 11: Eldar Corsairs. Book 12: Necron. Book 3 2nd Edition: Tau. Book 8: Orks. Book 6-7: Chaos Marine/Chaos Demon. Book 4: Tyranids (needs update, probably a few months after their new release). Soooooo. Yeah. 7 out of 12 books are xenos/other. Most of the imperial units in those books are reprints over and over again of elysian, cadian, death korps btw.

159 - Taking a Walk on the Purple Side
-
Over the weekend (with the wife away), I managed to get a little bit of my painting mojo back. Having stared at the built but not painted models that clutter...

Email to Join the Faeit 212 Blog Exchange

Search The Exchange

Loading...

Faeit 212 Videos

World View

Subscribe Now

Subscribe for Exclusive News and Rumors Straight to Your Inbox.

Page Views

Copyright

This website is completely unofficial and is in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited. Warhammer, Warhammer 40k, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf Logo, and all associated markes, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units and illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either TM and or Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2010, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

Data Collection

We Collect no data about you save for that captured by a cookie to provide us with anonymous information about site navigation.

Cookies are small pieces of text information created by websites and stored on your computer. We only use cookies to provide us with anonymous information about site navigation. No other information is stored in cookies, and cookies are not used for any other purpose. You should also be aware that whilst the above paragraph describes our use of cookies, some advertisers on this site may also collect data using cookies. The use of cookies and/or web beacons to collect data is used in the ad serving process. We do not have access to this data. Google uses the DART cookie to serve ads to our users based on their previous visits to our sites and other sites on the internet. Users may opt out of the use of DART cookies by visiting Google Ad and content network privacy policy at
http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Protection

We will not retain any details that you provide, except for your email address if you contact us and this will never be disclosed to third parties. Customers are free to opt out of the news services by following the instructions on the bottom of each news email if subscribed to.

Links

This website contains links to other websites. Please be aware that we are not responsible for the privacy practices of other websites. We encourage you, when you leave this website, to read the privacy statements/policies of each and every website you visit, as this particular privacy applies solely to this particular website

Privacy Policy

We respect your right to privacy. None of the information the site collects is passed on to other parties, except when required as part of the business services we provide for you, or as required under United States Law.